Public Benefit from Public Resources?: Understanding the Changing Conditions for Rural Resource Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this presentation is to understand how institutional processes at the national or sub-national level contribute to making rural resource regions attractive places for capital and labour through the redistribution of royalties/revenues from resource industries. The presentation will outline how different political and economic contexts shape how resource royalties/revenues are collected and distributed back into the region from which the resources have been extracted, and how effectively resource royalties strengthen the regional economy. Drawing from a theoretical foundation of staples theory, evolutionary economic geography and new regionalism, this presentation will examine the relationship between the state and resource regions. In particular the presentation will seek to engage the CRRF audience with a more detailed understanding of: (i) the political economy of the redistributive policy mechanisms used to support economic development in rural resource peripheries, (ii) how and why these resource royalty regimes have evolved (and changed) over time, and (iii) how royalty funds are collected and used at the regional and local level to support community and regional economic development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".